Laxminia Devi @ Laxmina Devi vs Central Coalfield Limited And Ors

Dr. Ravi Ranjan, CJ

Order No. 04 : Dated 23rd January, 2020

I.A. No.5435 of 2019:

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 272 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

Heard.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 5435 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 272 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No.414 of 2019:

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent No.1.

This appeal is directed against the decision dated 16.08.2018 passed by a learned Single Bench of this court rendered in W.P.(S) No.4364 of 2016 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No.5-Anita Devi has been allowed and the order dated 03.12.2015 of the C.C.L., which was impugned in the writ petition, was set aside and direction was given to the Central Coalfields Ltd. to decide the matter of granting compassionate appointment under the provisions of N.C.W.A. within a period of six weeks.

It is submitted that the direction has already been complied and Anita Devi has already been given compassionate appointment.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the law of Munda Tribe, Anita Devi had deserted the deceased employee Charka Munda and this is the reason why he had made an application on which the department had acted upon. It appears from Annexure-2 that he had requested for entering the name of appellant-Laxminia Devi as his wife and the same was witnessed by two persons. The date of marriage has been written as 20.04.2007. It is contended that once there is desertion, a second marriage is acceptable in Munda Community. However, learned Single Judge has observed that desertion may be a ground for getting a decree of divorce but it cannot be treated as divorce in absence of any valid document or showing such customary or the fact that the divorce was granted by some competent authority. Till such thing happens, the earlier marriage subsists.

We find no force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

There is nothing on record to show that even in the presence of one wife there is a customary of Munda Community that a person can remarry. Learned counsel has himself submitted before us that bigamy is not in practice in Munda Community. Having said so, it emanates from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has noticed that in the earlier Form submitted by the deceased, i.e., Form PS-3 & PS-4 the name of Anita Devi is there as wife of the employee Charka Munda. It is startling that the application, as stated by the appellant, for entering the name of the second wife was filed on 20.11.2013 whereas the date of alleged marriage with Laxminia Devi has been shown to be 20.04.2007 which is apparent from Annexure-2 and the employee died on 14.01.2014 that is merely after about two months.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also not been able to show that the case of the tribal, if not covered by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it would not be covered even under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Hence, in our view, the stand taken by the learned Single Judge that sans the declaration by a competent authority that on account of desertion, earlier marriage ceases to exist or stood annulled, the alleged second marriage cannot be accepted, as desertion in itself is not divorce but it can form a ground for getting divorce.

So far as Annexure-1 signed by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat and several other persons dated 19.03.2015 is concerned, that is, much of a date after even the death of the concerned employee that occurred in the Month of January, 2014, thus, it will have status only of a created document and would not be a valid piece of document to be relied upon.

Having observed as above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same stands dismissed.

Pending interlocutory applications also stand dismissed.